1 / 43

PROGRESS ON WATER PROPERTIES ON TRACKS RECONSTRUCTION

PROGRESS ON WATER PROPERTIES ON TRACKS RECONSTRUCTION. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, November 21 st -25 th , 2011. H Yepes -Ramirez IFIC (CSIC – Universitat de València). OUTLINE.

bian
Download Presentation

PROGRESS ON WATER PROPERTIES ON TRACKS RECONSTRUCTION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PROGRESS ON WATER PROPERTIES ON TRACKS RECONSTRUCTION ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, November 21st-25th, 2011 H Yepes -Ramirez IFIC (CSIC – Universitat de València)

  2. OUTLINE Brief reminder of light propagation in sea water: ANTARES Monte Carlo model Simulation: data selection, absorption and scattering length inputs and codes Selected results Conclusions and outlook ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  3. Brief reminder of light propagation in sea water

  4. Brief reminder of light propagation in sea water Absorption length Scattering Length Scattering phase function (b) • Morel and Loisel approach • Molecular scattering (Rayleigh)  Isotropic (<cosq>=0) • h = contribution of Rayleigh scattering • Particle scattering (Mie)  Strong forward peaked (<cosq>Mie=0.924) Attenuation Length (COLIMATED BEAM) Effective Attenuation Length (ISOTROPIC SOURCE) Scattering length wavelength dependence (Kopelevich parameterization) Petzold values for particle scattering b = scattering coefficient. vs, vl = scattering centers. <Cosq> = Average cosine of the global distribution ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  5. Simulation

  6. Simulation • DATA/MonteCarlo SELECTION: • Data 2008 – 2010 data from the official SeaTray production May 2011 (5997 runs). • First run: 31051, Last run: 54244. Subsample from Point Sources data from Juan Pablo analysis (2007-2010). • Lifetime: 618.96 days. • MonteCarlo (no run-by-run) SoS prepared (C. Bogazzi) with the previous subsample (5997 data runs). • Mupage for muons + Geasim for neutrinos. • Statistics hugely increased from CM Moscow (two runs per water model: 2 n, 2 n-, 2 m), right now: sc = scattering centers; aa = om angular acceptance; abs = absorption; sca = scattering; eta = fraction of Rayleigh scattering. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  7. Simulation • Water models are selected based on: • Three models with the same h value and different scattering spectrum for a given absorption length. • Three models with different h values, but h is computed in such a way that the three models will have the same effective scattering length at 470 nm, for a given absorption length. • OM Angular acceptance of June 2009 (Genova Meeting 2009). ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  8. Simulation Simulation chain: • WATER MODEL: • Photon tables production (water tables) Water tables (hbook files) + Description files (ASCII files). GEN • OM PARAMETERS: • Hit probability computation from the water tables for a given OM parameters Hit tables (hbook files) + Description files (ASCII files). HIT • Simulated events: Geometry + Kinematics • Physics events reading and OM hits production based on event geometry and hit probability tables Detector events: Signal hits (muons, not tracks from hadronic showers), physical background. KM3 • Simulations OF ATMOSPHERIC NEUTRINO INTERACTIONS. • Process (and evaluation) tracks from particles coming from the hadronic showers (also muons from KM3). GEASIM MCEW TRANSLATION OF INFO ASCII FILES INTO ROOT FORMAT. FORMAT CONVERSION TO “LOOK LIKE DATA”: electronics smearing effects (calibration, ARS response) and optical background. TE RECONSTRUCTION: Reconstruction of track direction (AAfit) and ntuples information arrangement as number of hits, zenith distribution…(AntDST). RECO ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  9. Simulation Main options and software versions in muons and neutrinos simulation: ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  10. Simulation Sanity check with the official production (sc0.0075 aa09 abs55 sca53 eta0.17): My production Official production • It is not a run-by-run simulation. • 5997 data runs (2008-2010). • 312 mupage muon runs. • 90 neutrino + 40 anti-neutrino Geasim files. • TE May 2011. • Down-going neutrinos not used in this MC. • Run-by-run simulation. • 5997 data runs (2008-2010). • 5941 mupage muon runs. • 5898 neutrino + 5900 anti-neutrino Geasim files. • TE September 2010. • Down-going neutrinos are used in the run-by-run MC. L >-5.2 removes some events close to the horizon (my sample), L > -5.4 relax this zone (SEE NEXT SLIDE) ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  11. Simulation ±[31-43]%  [-1, -0.1] ±25% [>0.2] ±45%  [-0.1, +0.1] • A restrictive cut at L > -5.2 removes neutrinos and muons near the horizon (and some muons below the horizon). This may have a large impact on this analysis due to the smaller statistics (concerning the run-by-run MC statistics). • If we relax the cut to L > -5.4 the agreement to data is better within the different available samples (typical cut on point sources analysis before run-by-run MC). ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  12. Selected Results

  13. Selected results • Lesson learnt since the CM in Moscow: extreme scattering models (lsca< 22 m) gets worst agreement to data: • Higher values (≈0.17) of contribution of Rayleigh scattering (h) under-estimates the data, however it is not clearly seen for lower values (≈ 0.17). • Values of labs > 55 m could not be an good approach. • The best agreement to data is then expected for large scattering lengths and not enough higher absorption lengths. • The ANTARES site seems to have a large scattering length. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  14. Selected results • DATA/MC rates for zenith angle distribution: • Lowest effective scattering lengths can be discarded (< 100 m). • Contribution of Rayleigh scattering seems to be lower. • lsca = 22 m && h = 0.02 && labs = 55 m fit better to data, overall at neutrino region. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  15. Selected results • DATA/MC rates for zenith angle distribution: • labs ≈ 63 m is not enough clear to be discarded. • Lowest effective scattering lengths can be discarded (< 100 m). • Contribution of Rayleigh scattering seems to be lower. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  16. Selected results Influence of labs on reconstructed tracks: Strategy  For a couple of water models with different labs but same scattering parameters, estimate the difference on the reconstructed track rate  Uncertainty on labs Vs uncertainty on the muon rate. Previous systematic studies in ANTARES (J.A et al / Astroparticle Physics 34, 2010, 179-184, Pag. 182)  “The uncertainty of the light absorption length in water is assumed to be ±10% over the whole wavelength spectrum and yields a variation of ±20% on the number of expected events”. CASE 1 Muons uncertainty (sm_rate) slabs≈ 13% (8 m) sm_rate≈ 13% (0.06 Hz) Neutrinos uncertainty (sn_rate) slabs≈ 13% (8 m) sn_rate≈ 10% (0.0003 Hz) ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  17. Selected results Muons uncertainty (sm_rate) slabs≈ 13% (8 m) sm_rate≈ 14% (0.07 Hz) Neutrinos uncertainty (sn_rate) slabs≈ 13% (8 m) sn_rate≈ 8% (0.0002 Hz) CASE 2 Muons uncertainty (sm_rate) slabs≈ 13% (8 m) sm_rate≈ 11% (0.06Hz) Neutrinos uncertainty (sn_rate) slabs≈ 13% (8 m) sn_rate≈ 6% (0.00015 Hz) CASE 3 ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  18. Selected results Muons uncertainty (sm_rate) slabs≈ 13% (8 m) sm_rate≈ 15% (0.07Hz) Neutrinos uncertainty (sn_rate) slabs≈ 13% (8 m) sn_rate≈ 26% (0.00055 Hz) CASE 4 Muons uncertainty (sm_rate) slabs≈ 13% (8 m) sm_rate≈ 13% (0.06Hz) Neutrinos uncertainty (sn_rate) slabs≈ 13% (8 m) sn_rate≈ 60% (0.0008 Hz) CASE 5 ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  19. Selected results Case 1: sm_rate ≈ 13 % Case 3: sm_rate ≈ 11 % Case 2: sm_rate ≈ 14 % Case 4: sm_rate ≈ 15 % Case 5: sm_rate ≈ 13 % •  THE UNKNOWLEDGE ABOUT ABSORPTION LENGTH FOR DIFFERENT WATER OPTICAL PARAMETERS HAS AN IMPACT ≈ 13% ON AVERAGE ON THE RECONSTRUCTED MUON RATE  ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  20. Selected results Case 2: sn_rate ≈ 8 % Case 1: sn_rate ≈ 10 % Case 3: sn_rate ≈ 6 % • NEUTRINO RATES: • UNCERTAINTY ON labs ≈ 13% • UNCERTAINTY nrate ≈ [6-60]% Case 4: sn_rate ≈ 26 % Case 5: sn_rate ≈ 60 % • RECONSTRUCTED NEUTRINO RATE IS VERY SENSITIVE TO THE RAYLEIGH SCATTERING CONTRIBUTION GIVING A UNCERTAINTY BETWEEN [26-60]%. • TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT EXTREME SCATTERING MODELS ARE DISCARDED, THE UNCERTAINTY ON NEUTRINO RATES DUE TO THE UNKNOWLEDGE OF ABSORPTION LENGTH COULD BE LESS THAN THE 26%. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  21. Selected results INFLUENCE OF lsca,eff ON RECONSTRUCTED TRACKS: Strategy Two optical parameters fixed (absorption, eta) and one free parameter (scattering length), for both absorption lengths. • Uncertainty on lsca_eff: ≈ 23 % (51.5 m). • Uncertainty on muon rate: ≈ 5 % (0.02 Hz). • Uncertainty on lsca_eff: ≈ 46 % (81.5 m). • Uncertainty on muon rate: ≈ 12 % (0.06 Hz). • Uncertainty on lsca_eff: ≈ 58 % (133 m). • Uncertainty on muon rate: ≈ 16 % (0.08 Hz). • Uncertainty on lsca_eff: ≈ 23 % (51.5 m). • Uncertainty on neutrino rate: ≈ 0 % (0 Hz). • Uncertainty on lsca_eff: ≈ 46 % (81.5 m). • Uncertainty on neutrino rate: ≈ 2% (0.00005 Hz). • Uncertainty on lsca_eff: ≈ 58 % (133 m). • Uncertainty on neutrino rate: ≈ 2 % (0.00005 Hz). • UNCERTAINTY ON lsca_eff [23-58]% UNCERTAINTY mrate [5-16]% • UNCERTAINTY ON lsca_eff [23-58]% UNCERTAINTY nrate < 2% ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  22. Selected results • Uncertainty on lsca_eff: ≈ 23 % (51.5 m). • Uncertainty on muon rate: ≈ 4 % (0.02 Hz). • Uncertainty on lsca_eff: ≈ 46 % (81.5 m). • Uncertainty on muon rate: ≈ 11 % (0.06 Hz). • Uncertainty on lsca_eff: ≈ 58 % (133 m). • Uncertainty on muon rate: ≈ 15 % (0.08 Hz). • Uncertainty on lsca_eff: ≈ 23 % (51.5 m). • Uncertainty on neutrino rate: ≈ 0 % (0 Hz). • Uncertainty on lsca_eff: ≈ 46 % (81.5 m). • Uncertainty on neutrino rate: ≈ 6 % (0.00015 Hz). • Uncertainty on lsca_eff: ≈ 58 % (133 m). • Uncertainty on neutrino rate: ≈ 6 % (0.00015 Hz). • UNCERTAINTY ON lsca_eff [23-58]% UNCERTAINTY mrate [4-15]% • UNCERTAINTY ON lsca_eff [23-58]% UNCERTAINTY nrate < 6% ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  23. Selected results INFLUENCE OF h ON RECONSTRUCTED TRACKS: Strategy One optical parameters fixed (absorption) and two free parameters (scattering length and eta), for both absorption lengths. • Uncertainty on h: ≈ 35 % (0.06). • Uncertainty on muon rate: ≈ 2 % (0.01 Hz). • Uncertainty on h: ≈ 81 % (0.02). • Uncertainty on muon rate: ≈ 5 % (0.01 Hz). • Uncertainty on h: ≈ 88 % (0.03). • Uncertainty on muon rate: ≈ 7 % (0.07 Hz). • Uncertainty on h: ≈ 35 % (0.06). • Uncertainty on neutrino rate: ≈ 38 % (0.00095 Hz). • Uncertainty on h: ≈ 81 % (0.09). • Uncertainty on neutrino rate: ≈ 67 % (0.00105 Hz). • Uncertainty on h: ≈ 88 % (0.15). • Uncertainty on neutrino rate: ≈ 79 % (0.0019 Hz). • UNCERTAINTY ON h [35-88]% UNCERTAINTY mrate [38-79]% • UNCERTAINTY ON h [35-88]% UNCERTAINTY mrate [2-7]% ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  24. Selected results • Uncertainty on h: ≈ 35 % (0.06). • Uncertainty on muon rate: ≈ 0 % (0.00 Hz). • Uncertainty on h: ≈ 81 % (0.09). • Uncertainty on muon rate: ≈ 4 % (0.02 Hz). • Uncertainty on h: ≈ 88 % (0.15). • Uncertainty on muon rate: ≈ 4 % (0.02 Hz). • Uncertainty on h: ≈ 35 % (0.06). • Uncertainty on neutrino rate: ≈ 21 % (0.00055 Hz). • Uncertainty on h: ≈ 81 % (0.09). • Uncertainty on neutrino rate: ≈ 34 % (0.0007 Hz). • Uncertainty on h: ≈ 88 % (0.15). • Uncertainty on neutrino rate: ≈ 48 % (0.00125 Hz). • UNCERTAINTY ON h [35-88]% UNCERTAINTY mrate [21-48]% • UNCERTAINTY ON h [35-88]% UNCERTAINTY mrate < 4% ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  25. Conclusions and outlook

  26. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK Current study shows that, for the current physics conditions simulated in the ANTARES KM3 code the uncertainty on water parameters could be summarized as follow: The effective scattering length seems to be the most relevant parameter for muons. Neutrino tracks reconstruction is very sensitive to the absorption length and Rayleigh scattering. An extensive study to effective areas and angular resolution will be performed. An internal note will be prepared soon with a dedicated description of the analysis. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  27. Backup

  28. BACKUP ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  29. BACKUP ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  30. BACKUP ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  31. BACKUP ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  32. BACKUP ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  33. BACKUP ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  34. BACKUP ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  35. BACKUP ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  36. BACKUP ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  37. BACKUP ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  38. BACKUP ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  39. BACKUP ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  40. BACKUP ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  41. BACKUP ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  42. BACKUP ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

  43. BACKUP ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Strasbourg, Nov 21st-25th

More Related